Photomatt’s argument is flawed in its interpretation of the First Amendment. Key points of concern include:
1. Misapplication of the First Amendment: The First Amendment restricts the U.S. government from infringing on freedom of speech. However, private entities are not bound by this provision. The First Amendment does not protect individuals from actions taken by private companies enforcing contractual or legal obligations. WP Engine, as a private entity, has the right to seek legal remedies, including an injunction, if they believe rights, promises, or contractual terms have been violated. The issue is not about freedom of speech but about the misuse of his power and position, conflicts of interest and multiple harms caused by Mullenweg’s actions.
2. Speech Rights vs. Legal Injunctions: The Mullenweg is framing legal claims as a restriction of free speech. However, a legal injunction does not curtail First Amendment rights unless it unjustly censors speech in a manner recognized by courts. Injunctions often aim to prevent specific harms, such as defamation, breach of promise or contract, or other legal wrongs, and are about addressing legal violations.
3. Legal Context: The Mullenweg overlooks that WP Engine’s claims are not about restricting free speech but about other legal concerns, amongst other things : intellectual property, contract disputes, breaches of promise, and reputational harm. The framing of the argument as about free speech is specious and distracts from the core legal issues at play in the injunction.
4. Contradictory Position: Photomattic says he will stop commenting on the case but simultaneously encourages others to speak on his behalf. While this tactic may not directly violate any rights, it seems disingenuous to claim adherence to one’s First Amendment rights while actively seeking to influence public discourse through surrogates and shrills, something he appears to have done throughout the dispute.
The argument seeks to manipulatively capture sympathy and naively misunderstands and misrepresents the First Amendment, conflates legal actions taken by a private company with government suppression of speech. It fails to engage with the legal basis of the injunction and attempts to encourage others to speak for him.
Congratulations to the lawyer who finally made him realize that shooting his mouth off was a winning strategy.